The transparency on frameborder thing is part of Facebook's iframe, AFAIK there's nothing we can do about that.

The date format thing is saying that our <input type="date" /> does not have a date entered. This is ridiculous, and I'm confident that the spec and or the validator will be updated to allow empty values at a time in the near future.

I realize people are trying to be helpful, but realize that it is humans that read websites, using web browsers, not HTML validator scripts. I guess there might be a few people browsing XenForo with lynx.

I realize people are trying to be helpful, but realize that it is humans that read websites, using web browsers, not HTML validator scripts. I guess there might be a few people browsing XenForo with lynx.

Click to expand...

Validation, unlike SEO, does matter for the humans reading it. I agree that some errors are pretty pointless and don't matter (like these damn OpenGraph meta tags), but making sure you're valid ensures that all [standards-compliant] web browsers view your site the same, and also makes it accessible for those who have disabilities.

Validation, unlike SEO, does matter for the humans reading it. I agree that some errors are pretty pointless and don't matter (like these damn OpenGraph meta tags), but making sure you're valid ensures that all [standards-compliant] web browsers view your site the same, and also makes it accessible for those who have disabilities.

Click to expand...

All of the invalid code shown won't do anything for humans reading it, sorry.

Validation, unlike SEO, does matter for the humans reading it. I agree that some errors are pretty pointless and don't matter (like these damn OpenGraph meta tags), but making sure you're valid ensures that all [standards-compliant] web browsers view your site the same, and also makes it accessible for those who have disabilities.

Click to expand...

Show me any browser that renders the pages differently after dealing with these particular validation errors described.

Show me any browser that renders the pages differently after dealing with these particular validation errors described.

Click to expand...

I'm not saying THESE error codes will change rendering. From what I understand, his post was bashing validating HTML in general, which is what I was referring to. My post did mention that these errors are pointless.

I'm not saying THESE error codes will change rendering. From what I understand, his post was bashing validating HTML in general, which is what I was referring to. My post did mention that these errors are pointless.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. I agree with you, standards compliance is important.

Of course, sometimes the W3C just gets it plain wrong. The CSS box model is a prime example. Whoever came up with the the idea that 'width' should not include padding, border and outline was a bumbling fool, and their error has crippled the development of the web. It's not encouraging to see new idiotic errors creeping into specs either, such as the input:date requirement to contain a value. It's just plain wrong and lacks foresight.

Of course, sometimes the W3C just gets it plain wrong. The CSS box model is a prime example. Whoever came up with the the idea that 'width' should not include padding, border and outline was a bumbling fool, and their error has crippled the development of the web. It's not encouraging to see new idiotic errors creeping into specs either, such as the input:date requirement to contain a value. It's just plain wrong and lacks foresight.

Click to expand...

I guess I agree. I recently got that "input:date" error and was going insane figuring out why it was an error. While some validation is important to the growth of the web, a lot of what we have now is just a hindrance.

For example, take a look at a lot of major corporation sites that you may visit on a frequent basis. Online stores, communities, anything. Almost none of them are 100% W3C certified (at least in HTML/XHTML). I just checked Wal-Mart for the heck of it. 318 errors, 30 warnings. Site works fine in major browsers, probably works with screen readers and magnifiers, and they even have an auto-detecting mobile site. Works fine from every angle, but doesn't have W3C's seal of approval.

I guess the important thing is to build your site right, and not worry about the validation.

No... Checking for validation is actually quite important, it's just that there are *some* errors that you may have to simply live with. But getting as close as possible to complete validation can make your life a LOT easier, it has a tendency to eliminate a lot of the display quirks that make life hell when you get into cross browser support (with the exception of the pile of POO that is IE6, that's just a black hole of wasted time).

As Kier said, there's a few standards that just don't make sense, but for the most part the validator is a major help if you use it *frequently*.

Of course, sometimes the W3C just gets it plain wrong. The CSS box model is a prime example. Whoever came up with the the idea that 'width' should not include padding, border and outline was a bumbling fool, and their error has crippled the development of the web.

Click to expand...

Sometimes I do think that IE5 got the box-model right. Including the padding and borders into calculating the width of an element makes so much more sense than W3C's way of not including it by default.

Validation is not the be all, end all for SEO, as some think it is. Validation is only useful to exact HTML tag specifics, correct nesting, etc. As long as you validate the actual HTML, then in essence validation is true. If you left tags out, incorrectly nested, etc... sure, you will get browser issues.

If you want to live in the 90's with boring to non-existent features, then sure... rely on 100% validation, as you're certainly not going to have anything cool and new within your site.